The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by eight months of imprisonment.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for appeal (victim D is referred to as “C” for convenience

2) The defendant's employee's employee's non-employee and the party who traded the gift certificates of this case with the defendant at the time is C, so the victim of the crime of this case's fraud is C) and the decision

A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal by authority, the first instance court judgment was no longer maintained due to the following changes in circumstances, which led to the first instance court’s ex officio determination on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal: (a) the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to indictment with the effect that the facts charged in this case are exchanged for the following crimes; and (b) the subject of

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining merchandise coupons 1,270 (89,150,000) (excluding the part of Chapter 250, 18,750,000 among merchandise coupons 1 No. 300 of merchandise coupons 1) is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court as to the assertion of legal principles, the remaining part of Chapter 1,270 did not notify the defendant that the victim D purchased gift certificates from another person and resells them. Even if the defendant signed on the certificate of the acquisition of goods used by Pyeongtaek as the same transaction method as the previous transaction method, according to the statement of transaction submitted by the victim D or H and the statement of financial transaction data, etc., it is recognized that the victim D purchased gift certificates from G or H and resale them to the defendant as the party to the transaction. The victim D sold the amount equivalent to 75% of the face value of gift certificates to the defendant in the transaction on September 13, 2012, but thereafter sold them to the amount equivalent to 70% of the face value of gift certificates, the sale conditions are unfavorable to the defendant.